Welcome message

Hello, Jpatt. I received your welcome message on my talk page—thank you! So we're on the same page, is it a standard welcome to include the editor's guide links, or did I make an inappropriate edit? Thanks! Crusadestudent (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

I've perused the guidelines, and have a question remaining: is there any policy or widespread consensus on the use of "Catholic" versus "Roman Catholic"? Other editors on Wikipedia have engaged in edit wars with me over this, and I would prefer to avoid the dispute here. Crusadestudent (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

Edits were just fine, standard procedure. There will be no edit warring over Catholic or Roman Catholic. Do as you feel is necessary.--Jpatt 21:23, 7 May 2016 (EDT)

I deleted my user page, but still appears in the history. Please help me delete my pages at conservapedia.com and my conservapedia.com account. Please delete them. (data-provider)

re: Sam HB's main page talk page commentary

User: SamHB said on the main page talk page that my archiving on main page talk content was correct. And I couldn't find any error in what I had done.

So I restored what I did.

I haven't talked to you in awhile. I hope things are going great for you. Conservative (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

I'm hanging in there in this Obama economy, thanks for asking.--Jpatt 10:11, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

Daily edit limit?

Hi again, I have another question for you, if you don't mind. An editor here says that thay are limited as to how many edit they can make per day. Specifically, they say that after making six edits, the Edit option simply disappears from is replaced with "View Source" in the top bar. Do you know if this is sometimes done on purpose, or if this is a glitch? Thanks! --David B(TALK) 13:10, 7 September 2016 (EDT)

Correction: The edit button becomes a "View Source" button, as if the user was not not logged in, or the page were protected, even though it is not. --David B(TALK) 01:33, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Sounds like a gremlin. What browser is being used? He should sign up for a new account and see if the problem can be duplicated. --Jpatt 09:37, 8 September 2016 (EDT)

Conservapedia:New Page Challenge

It seemed at first that my new pages weren't getting counted either, so I started publishing the pages so they met all the requirements from the beginning. I would then edit as desired. Does this have anything to do with it? Perhaps only the actual page creation was counted, with following edits discounted? --David B(TALK) 21:20, 7 January 2017 (EST)

I'm curious about that too. In order to avoid all my work being deleted due to an internal server error, I only wrote and published my articles in several pieces at a time. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2017 (EST)

Whenever you get the chance to reach out, my e-mail is davidb4-cp@archnet.us Thanks! --David B(TALK) 12:57, 16 January 2017 (EST)

IRC

Hello,
After some discussion (on my talk page and Andy's) it has been decided that I start an Internet Relay Chat channel for Conservapedia, since our old one has been dead since 2009. It is now registered and somewhat set up. I don't know if you use IRC or are interested in doing so, but anyone with block privileges on Conservapedia can also get block privileges on the new IRC channel. Unfortunately, IRC accounts are deleted after 30 days of being unused, so unless you plan on using the IRC at least once a month, there is probably not much point in registering. In any case, feel free to try it out--if you account gets deleted, we can always make another one later. If you are interested, please let me know!
The IRC channel is: #conservapedia @irc.accessIRC.net
Let me know if you have any questions or need anything else, also! --David B(TALK) 15:37, 11 April 2017 (EDT)

Pizzagate

I appreciate your point. I guess I have been around Washington DC long enough to worry about a quote being taken out of context. I don't want to be repetitive, but can we find a way to avoid repeating pizzagate allegations in the voice of CP saying that we accept that they are true? Thanks, JDano (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2017 (EDT)

Breitbart got his wish, Podesta is now a household name for unspeakable dregs. Keeping the story neither true nor false is fine by me. I'll be glad to see it end one day. --Jpatt 23:17, 13 April 2017 (EDT)

Dear Jpatt: I have not seen any reliable sources regarding the (since deleted) social media account. If the idea of Pizzagate is the Posdesta and Clinton are involved in a disgusting thing, isn't this issue tangential to the basic idea of the Pizzagate conspiracy? It is like criticizing Wikipedia, someone may have posted some dirty material at one time, but if you can't access it now or provide links to a reliable archive of the materials, one loses credibility by saying "There were dirty pictures on Wikipedia, but now it's gone and you can't see for yourself." It is against CP policy to provide links to the stuff. Aren't we merely giving our student readers bad ideas by focusing upon dirty pictures posted on social media rather than the overall narrative sex acts. If a public figure, such an elected politician or a judge, has a social media account with bad stuff, then CP can properly report on it based on reliable sources. But if a person who is not a public figure is rumored to have bad stuff on his social media account (which was since deleted), it does not belong on CP. Thanks, JDano (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

The reliable source is James Alefantis own Instagram account archived for all to see. I can provide the link if you can't find it. He is a public figure, having been featured in GQ. He wrote an op-ed for WaPo last week. It's relevant to point out that a person at the center of the conspiracy is of questionable character. And again, he is well connected with the top of the democrat party. It is well documented how the left uses their resources to smear the right. I am for promoting smears against the left. Eventually like all conspiracies, this will become old news such as 9/11 truthers. Until then, the pressure will be kept on. --Jpatt 22:40, 22 April 2017 (EDT)

I personally never have used Instagram. Conservapedia's policy is well grounded in libel law and the New York Times v. Sullivan case. I doubt that James Alefantis qualifies as a public figure, even if he was featured in GQ magazine. Hypothetically, if CP were to publish gossip about Mr. Alefantis and he in turns sues CP for libel, we (particularly the author) would have a tough time defending ourselves. In contrast if Hillary Clinton sued CP for libel, under New York Times v. Sullivan, we would argue that Clinton would have to prove "actual malice" to win the case. For these reasons, the Conservapedia Commandments should be applied to allow coverage of PizzaGate and the historic fact the Clinton and Posdesta were implicated. We should not name lesser figures, describe their deleted social media accounts, or take a position that the rumors were true. CP is not a fake news website with hidden ownership. Rather it is a legitimate online encyclopedia with clear ownership, management, policies and accountability. If you and Andy want to take the legal risk and lead with your chin, I will not stop you, but I won't donate to the PizzaGate Legal Defense Fund either. Thanks, JDano (talk) 13:43, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

I see your point but dismiss it. You can't have a Pizzagate conspiracy without Alefantis. He is ground zero and deeply woven in with the top of the Democrat party. Lesser known names have become public figures due to notoriety. Threats of lawsuits should not be a determining factor of whether or not to post said accusations. I'm sure he would rather draw less attention to the story than more of it. Nothing mentioned here is unique and can be found on hundreds of websites. Don't concern yourself so much, it seems the story is unlikely to be proven. --Jpatt 17:20, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Actualmalice, you say? As your attorney, PG 65, I advise you to burn that talk page with fire, and to salt the earth behind you. JohnZ (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Moving Pages

Hello, if I'm not mistaken, you're an admin and capable of moving/deleting pages, and so I'd like to make a request.

Currently, the biblical book of Titus is located on a page called Epistle to Titus, whereas the page Titus is being used as nothing more then a redirection page to Titus Flavius Vespasianus, a Roman emperor with a very non-comprehensive page. So, I think it's best to move Epistle to Titus to Titus, as I think the title for the page of the biblical book should occupy its own name, especially since the current page on Titus is just a redirection page. I discussed this earlier on User talk:DavidB4.

Also, I'd like you to move Queen Gorgo of Sparta to simply Gorgo of Sparta. Gorgo was in fact a queen, but that should merely be reflected in the article, not its actual title. I plan to expand this page and the title simply is imperfect and gets in the way. Queen Gorgo of Sparta should be deleted after the page is removed. Thanks. Korvex (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2017 (EDT)

Hello, it seems as if I've found another issue. The great emperor Sargon of Akkad has a page on Conservapedia, but it isn't called Sargon of Akkad, it's called Sargon the Great. This is problematic, as the known name for this emperor is Sargon of Akkad, whereas 'Sargon the Great' is a later nickname developed for Sargon. So, it seems as if Sargon the Great needs to be moved to Sargon of Akkad, and the page Sargon the Great should simply be deleted.

The "Sargon the Great" page should NOT be deleted, regardless of what Jpatt chooses to do. More people know of him as "Sargon the Great," and if the redirect is deleted, not as many people will find the article (there are around 400,000 Google hits for "Sargon of Akkad" but over 12 million for "Sargon the Great"). There have been at least two or three times where I've created long articles, only to find that an article on the topic already existed but that the article creator did not create any redirects. Redirects should not be deleted, unless they are vandalism/parody. By the way, I recreated the "Queen Gorgo of Sparta" so people can find that article more easily as well. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:32, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

I've completed the move, but I agree with 1990'sguy, we should keep the redirect. Redirects are used for alternate titles, but also for incorrect titles. The page content is not there, because it is not the proper title, but the content does exist in the linked location. --David B(TALK) 16:51, 2 May 2017 (EDT)

Good idea, I didn't think about the redirect.Korvex (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2017 (EDT)

I've fixed the double redirects except in those cases where the pages were protected, were redirects to deleted pages, or, in one case, were on a User's page. Would it be possible, when you get the chance, to fix the double redirects on protected pages?--Whizkid (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2017 (EDT)

I have come across another request I have for another page move. The ancient figure Herod Agrippa I does in fact have a page on him in Conservapedia, but it's not called as it should be Herod Agrippa I, it's strangely called King Herod Agrippa I. Now, although Agrippa was in fact a king, his title should not appear in the title of his page. It should simply be mentioned in the contents of the page. For example, we don't name our pages "President Barack Obama", we simply name them Barack Obama and note in the page that Obama was a president. So, King Herod Agrippa I should be moved to Herod Agrippa I, whereas the other page should simply be a redirect (it's the other way around right now).Korvex (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2017 (EDT)

Of all the news in Uzbekistan...

Of all the news in Uzbekistan, video games? (I don't think the crazy Hizb ut-Tahrir militants play video games. Law won't make much of a difference, considering how few people in O'zbekistan own game consoles.) What about the change in exit visa policy? They are officially going to drop the exit visa no later than 2021 (Inoyatov was really opposed to dropping them). It's a great step in the right direction. (Exit visas are basically a way of making it really hard for people to leave their country, most notably DPRK)--IluvAviation (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

There is a debate raging whether violent games have an effect on impressionable youth. The story is not so much about the Uzbeks but more about recognizing that video games do have an influence on youth, especially if they are ultra-violent. I don't think the Sims would qualify though.--Jpatt 20:11, 31 May 2017 (EDT)

Honours & decorations

Your block of "MaintainerOfFacts"

Hello Jpatt, I saw that you blocked "MaintainerOfFacts" for "vandalism", but I do not see how this user's single edit was vandalism. Would you please explain? --1990'sguy (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

It seemed odd but I think you might be right here. Unblocked.--Jpatt 21:40, 11 July 2017 (EDT)

I haven't looked at the latter two items, but right-wingers gaining momentum on the internet is an interesting development. With nationalism gaining ground in Europe and 21st century desecularization occurring, the trend is bound to continue. Conservative (talk)

1990sguy

Indeed 1990sguy has been stalking me today. He systematically reverts my changes without reading them. He judges edits based on the amount of bytes changed rather than seeing the good editing leads to fewer bytes to say the same idea in a less wordy, confusing way. Please tell him to stop and be considerate. JDano (talk) 11:18, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

@JDano: I am not stalking you. I am reverting edits I legitimately think are bad. You are adding liberal bias into articles. You called "constitutional carry" a "propaganda term". And you added language casting a negative light on it.[7] If you stopped adding liberal bias to articles and stopped constantly reverting me without going to the talk page, I would not do what you call "stalking." --1990'sguy (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

In addition, JDano, you frequently mention on issue in your edit summaries, when you actually make numerous changes. When I revert you, giving a reason, you revert me back without explaining why I was wrong. This edit was made well into the edit war, but you did not explain why you supported these edits, even though I made myself clear in previous edits that I opposed these changes. In this edit, you write as your edit summary "moved a bit on the capitalization", but you make the same edits I opposed. Here, you stated that because I strongly opposed your edits, I should not edit the article. I have seen similar behavior from you in multiple other articles (fake news, travel ban, Donald Trump achievements). I want to work with you, but how can I with this behavior? --1990'sguy (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2017 (EDT

By my definition, you are stalking / hounding me. I go to a page and start editing it. Each time I go back to make the next batch of changes, I find that you mindlessly have reverted the edits that I have made so far. If you find yourself having strong feelings or your ego has become engaged while working on Conservapedia, go take a break or work on something else. I am not "adding liberal bias" to articles. Sometimes less is more. We are here to write an encyclopedia that is free of the liberal bias found on Wikipedia. We are not hear to grind any political axe. If I finish revising an article and then someone comes along with a different viewpoint in terms of how the article is to be presented, I will discuss it calmly on the talk page. There is no point in going to the talk page in the middle of the editing. I also note that you did not leave any talk page comments today. Again, I would ask my long-time colleague JPatt to read the diffs from today. Thanks, JDano (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

So, calling constitutional carry a "propaganda" term, deleting a factual explanation of its legal basis and putting a statement stating it causes "confusion", and arbitrarily labeling Breitbart articles opinion sources is not adding liberal bias? And contrary to what you stated, me reverting your edits has nothing to do with myself or my "ego". I legitimately think your edits are bad, and because relatively few people edit CP, if someone is going to correct those edits, it has to be me. --1990'sguy (talk) 11:41, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

Maybe it appears that I am taking sides. But I watched you on multiple occasions messing with 1990sguy edits. So yes he is doing the same back I suppose. I just don't want to see the project abandoned by petty back and forth edits and reverts. Encourage edit, not discourage edits. Talk page and dispute resolutions with the input of others is favored to the constant revert warring. The pattern needs to change now. --Jpatt 12:19, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

One big problem I have with JDano and his editing style is that I have found, through interacting with him, he is not willing to make concessions. At all. I remember the dispute I had with him on the Donald Trump achievements article over the Breitbart source. I gave in to him on changing the wording and adding several other references. However, he continued demanding the removal of the Breitbart reference and would not stop until essentially every other editor sided against him. I have made concessions to him on the other articles, including this one. I am not "mindlessly" reverting everything he does, and JDano has been helpful in some ways. The problem is that it seems that he takes an all or nothing approach (or close to that approach) to his edits. It makes resolving these issues very difficult. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2017 (EDT)

JDano is continuing to revert on the constitutional carry page without going to the talk page. Please, make him stop this. --1990'sguy (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2017 (EDT)